MQPUT1 is an expensive call.  Open with multiple puts will yield much
better performance.  Additionally, leaving the remote Queue open won't
affect channel performance.

Just make sure you design in the fail if quiesing option on the open and
the put.


-----Original Message-----
From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:27 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: A Silly Question

I have a CICS application that acts as a back-end service. Several
applications send messages to a common queue. These requests are
reformatted and sent to a third party for processing.

The CICS transactions are long running and do get a response back. This
is
my question: From a design standpoint, does it make any difference if
the
transaction just opens the remote queue, leaves it open all day and then
just does MQPUT vs doing a MQPUT1 for each request?

 My concern is that I will be using more CPU if I do MQPUT1, plus this
runs
contrary to everything that MQPUT1 was designed for: sending one
message.
My other concern is since the remote queue resolves to a XMITQ, would
this
have any effect on the channel program when the XMITQ became empty and
heartbeat flows were taking place between the MCAs.

The volume is around 20,000 messages in a 12 hr period.




-----------------------------------------
This message, including any attachments, is the property of Sears
Holdings
Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries. It is confidential and may
contain proprietary or legally privileged information. If you are not
the
intended recipient, please delete it without reading the contents. Thank
you.

Instructions for managing your mailing list subscription are provided in
the Listserv General Users Guide available at http://www.lsoft.com
Archive: http://listserv.meduniwien.ac.at/archives/mqser-l.html

Instructions for managing your mailing list subscription are provided in
the Listserv General Users Guide available at http://www.lsoft.com
Archive: http://listserv.meduniwien.ac.at/archives/mqser-l.html

Reply via email to